Clean Eden Sessions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it defaults to dry-run, only touches 'valid, stopped, unprotected' profiles, and never removes certain categories. This gives the agent clear guardrails and safety expectations. There is no contradiction with the annotation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the safety qualifier. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema and moderate complexity. The description covers purpose and safety well, but the lack of parameter explanations (especially keep_latest and older_than_days) leaves a significant gap. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description should have compensated but didn't, making it minimally complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (dry_run, keep_latest, older_than_days). While 'dry-run' is mentioned in the description, the retention criteria parameters (keep_latest, older_than_days) are not described. This leaves the agent without essential semantics for how retention is configured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: applying retention to valid, stopped, unprotected Eden MCP session profiles. It uses a specific verb ('apply retention') and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eden_cleanup_artifacts by focusing on sessions. It also conveys the safety scope ('never removes active, protected, unconfirmed, or legacy paths').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context on when to use the tool (on valid, stopped, unprotected sessions) and explicit when-not behavior (never removes active, protected, unconfirmed, or legacy paths). It also mentions the dry-run default, guiding safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.